Faculty/Author Profile

Michael N. Khalil

Miller & Chevalier

Washington, DC, USA

Michael Khalil is Vice Chair of the firm's Employee Benefits Department. Mr. Khalil's practice focuses on the litigation of claims arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) in federal trial and appellate courts. Mr. Khalil has represented plan sponsors, administrators, participants and service providers in complex ERISA actions, including revenue-sharing and stock-drop class actions. Mr. Khalil has particular experience in litigating breach of fiduciary duty claims and plan termination cases against the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation under Title IV of ERISA. Beyond his ERISA litigation experience, Mr. Khalil has significant experience advising clients on civil litigation against the U.S. government, including Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) actions and discovery disputes. Mr. Khalil also advises employers and insurers on a wide variety of issues related to the implementation of the ACA.

Mr. Khalil is a frequent author and speaker on a variety of topics in his practice areas, with particular emphasis on pension plan termination and the legal issues arising from the implementation of the ACA. Mr. Khalil is also a member of the firm's Diversity Committee.

Prior to joining Miller & Chevalier, Mr. Khalil was an Associate in the litigation practice of Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, LLP, where he worked on a broad range of commercial litigation matters.

In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litig. (2d Cir. Case No. 12-4671) (Part of legal team representing large group of health insurers in appeal of district court's Rule 23(b)(2) class certification and settlement of antitrust class action, with our objection highlighting specific concerns of settlement to insurance companies in light of their coverage obligations under the ACA).

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan v. Hi-Lex Controls, Inc. (Supreme Court Case No. 14-168) (Part of legal team representing various trade organizations arguing that the Court should grant certiorari in the case to address uncertainty created by the Sixth Circuit's decision for liability for third-party administrators of ERISA plans).